Women don't deserve maternity leave apparently?

I listen to AM Radio talk show in the morning on my way to work, and I listen to Mike Gallagher in the evening when I get off work. Usually the guy shuts down everybody that disagrees with his view points, or hangs up on them during a pause where he continues talking after the phone conversation. But not this time, this time the tables turned X-D I usually agree with some of the stuff he says but not always. However one thing really blew my mind, I couldn't believe he said this.

'It's a racket for women to get 3 months maternity leave!'

Boy, did he get a lot of callers after that one. And I agree with the callers that phoned in. Nine months of carrying around another human being, and going through all the labor involved with that is no joke and a man can't know what it feels like, and I think women do deserve paid leave of absence during this time.

What are your views on this? There is some surprisingly counter intuitive economic data I learned in college about the effects of maternity leave and female labor force on the market, but I think I'll hold off on that.

Most Helpful Guy

Anonymous

Here's an idea: Why not let the companies and the women decide how to deal with time off for maternity leave?

There will be LOTS of different companies, and they can offer LOTS of different alternatives. Some could be super generous and give you 9-12 months fully paid off. Others can give you absolutely nothing. And there could be all sorts of options in between. Think that sounds weird? Consider this:

All jobs offer different PAY too! Why is this ANY different?

Obviously, some women would be more inclined to take a job that offers generous maternity leave. Others would rather give them higher pay and less maternity leave. Different strokes for different folks!

Thanks. Yeah, I don't understand why some people just don't get the concept that what works for THEM isn't the ideal for EVERYONE. The one-size-fits-all solution is rarely a good idea. As for "most companies wouldn't pay it then," WHY wouldn't they? The only reason would be because MOST women would value higher PAY more than higher BENEFITS. If that's the case, guess what? Most companies SHOULDN'T give the benefit, because most women WANT THE MONEY!

actually no. If most companies could chose they would pay low wages and no maternity leave. Companies always look to increase profit and one way doing that is safe money with things like that, that's why they wouldn't pay

Ok homie, then riddle me this: why do ANY firms EVER pay ANYONE more than the minimum wage? After all, if they earned more profit by cutting wages, why not cut ALL wages to the minimum required by law? Hmm. . . Must be something going on here. . . What do you suppose it is?

Try again genevieve. Lots of companies offer ALL KINDS of benefits to employees that they aren't FORCED to by law, and that they COULD legally all reduce at once: vacation days, personal days, vision and dental benefits, better health plans, expensible meals, better travel benefits.

So someone tell me: WHY do they do this? (There just MIGHT be an important lesson in there. . .)

It also depends on what benefits people go for to, a person knowing they are going to have kids should seek jobs that have a better maternity leave policy, of course, it might result in lower pay, but what is a worker willing to give up? can't have your cake and eat it too, plus cake is bad for pregnancy, should eat healthier.

Ha! Yeah, that's exactly right. Some people prefer cholocate and some people prefer vanilla. That's why it's good to have different companies that provide different things for different tastes. One big problem we have today (in my view) is that you have a bunch of "student council busybody types" that run around essentially saying stupid crap like "I like vanilla! Therefore ALL ice cream should be vanilla!" rather than leaving people to work out what's best for them.

Ah, this must be a Fox News talk host; Its very fair and bigoted...er, I mean, balanced.

Most women can physically return to work after 6 weeks, but it is at least 3 months of recovery after a C-section.

Nevertheless; Its the infants who really need the maternity leave. And you will be hard-pressed to find a daycare that takes infants under 3 months old.

Labor laws in CA only protect women's job for 3 months of maternity leave. If the woman is gone for more than 3 months she can be fired. I think US gov disability covers 6-12 weeks of paid maternity leave under certain criteria, but there is no mandate on that.

AM talk show, apparently MG was just "pulling legs" and joking and another media company took his statement "It's a racket for women to get three months off" too seriously and over exaggerated it and twisted it around or some shyt, I don't know, I'm basing it off what callers say and what he said

I don't even listen to shows like that. But I did read about a lawyer who was trying a case while she was 8 months pregnant and went back to work 2 weeks after she gave birth. That to me is crazy. My Aunt had a baby a couple years ago and she took 3 or 4 months off before she went back to work which I think is how it should be if you intend to go back to work. When my Mom had me and my sister she took a few months off.

Some women just pop out babies like...like...poof, all done. Others have C sections, others die of complications, and others go through 8 hours of labor. Some people will have 5 kids because its easy for them. Other moms have only one baby because they could die if they give birth to another, like my aunt for instance.

I think that during the last months of pregnancy and a few months after giving birth, yes we should get a paid leave.

If it's longer I think companies shouldn't have to pay. But a few months before and after birth are actually nesesscary. Working until the very end would in most cases be very unhealthy and going back the very next week would be extremley hard.I've never been pregnant but I heard you feel ridicoulously tired and weak for a couple of weeks after that

Even for a long time after the pregnancy it takes a long time to recover. Men don't have a clue how hard it is on the body, they only focus on how unattractive it makes our bodies. Where I live the father or the mother can take the maternity leave and more and more men are staying home to look after the baby or other couples do half and half which they can also do. Where I come from it is also mine and the father's tax dollars and not the company that pays for it. We paid into it and now we are getting our money back.

What Guys Said 6

I think that at first glance, maternity leave sounds like a wonderful, compassionate thing. But take a second look...

Whose decision was it to have sex and become pregnant? Was the company involved? Did they have any say whatsoever? If they are going to be required to pay a benefit to someone who becomes pregnant, shouldn't they have some say in the matter? Or would that be too intrusive? None of their damn business, I bet most would say...

So it's none of a woman's employer's damn business to have anything to do with her decision to become pregnant. Why then, if they have no rights in the matter, should they bear any responsibility?

If you think you have the right to say that the company should be responsible for paying maternity leave, then perhaps you would also like to make the decision as to whose paycheck the money comes from. Of course, you would need to explain to all the other employees why they are to be compensated only $8.00 for $10.00 worth of work. Good luck with that one.

No, corporations don't just have piles of money that came from nowhere laying around. They earn money, and from that amount of money, they pay out salaries to people who work for them. Every dollar that comes out of those earnings to pay maternity benefits to someone who is not working is a dollar that cannot be paid to compensate someone who is working. Those whose salaries are reduced in this way include not only men, who cannot become pregnant, but many women also who cannot or choose not to become pregnant. And, surprise! None of these people who are in fact paying for this maternity leave has any business becoming involved in a woman's decision to have sex and become pregnant, either. Certainly none of them enjoyed having sex with her! Does that sound fair to you?

Alternatively, the money can come from you, the consumer, in the form of higher prices. Let's say you think maternity leave is a great idea. When you are in the store, comparing the prices of products, do you decide on the higher priced item when you know it is produced by a firm that provides maternity leave, or do you purchase the cheaper item, essentially supporting the company that does not provide this benefit?

And where does this end? Are there any limits? A woman may choose to have one, or three, or five, or nine children. Is there some point at which it becomes unfair to require the company not only to hold a woman's job open, but to pay her for doing nothing for as many as 2 or 3 years altogether?

The decision to have children is a deeply personal decision, with consequences that reach far beyond the initial few months. Even if the first few months of responsibility are handled by the employer, there are the next 18 YEARS to think about! If a person has made this decision without being prepared to handle all the responsibility it entails, then they and the children are in serious trouble.

Personal rights and freedoms. Personal responsibility. Never separate the two.

I'm really no expert on this but maternaty leave is reality in most if not all industrialised countries and it seems to work well. I don't really understand why so many people refuse to let America become a little more socialist. We have expensive higher education, no proper health care system, no proper social security system. We are in the dark ages when it comes to those things compared to other countries.

All those things you mention, in addition to the maternity leave thing, are wonderful ideas. If there was a way to make it all happen in a fair way, I would be all for it. But unfortunately, nobody has ever come up with a way to really give something for nothing. So what ends up happening in socialist countries- and yes, the U.S. is well on its way toward socialism- is that someone must be denied something they earned in order to give someone else something they did not earn.

socialism till now hasn't failed. Socialism is totally different from communism. It's just believing that institutions that shouldn't be run for profrit should be organised by the government, like schools, hospitals and universities. And that people shouldn't be afraid that they'll be homeless if they lose their job, or can't pay their bills if they get sick. And all this works great in europe, particulary countries like denmark, sweden, norway or germany. I'm afraid the US far from being

I don't think your ideas are crazy.. I believe health care and maternity leave, etc. are all worthy goals. But I believe you overlook the fact that government has no money of its own to give away- it has to steal money from some people, giving them nothing in return, in order to give money to other people. When this money comes from "the rich" or some other evil bogeyman, it's OK. When it comes out of your pocket, and it eventually will, the injustice of that will suddenly strike home, and hard.

I honestly think they deserve a few months off then. I really don't know much about buisness or economics, but my guess would be that since men often make slightly more for the same job, women being a away from work for a while, while getting paid would even that out!?

It's the choice of the woman to whether or not to have a child. I think the company can offer women alternative jobs while they are on leave of absence but to just give them money for not working is not very good for the company.

In other parts of the world, populations are increasing, for example, Pakistan and India. Some say that they are using vaccines to sterilize people. Anyway, another factor to decreasing population is the education of women.

Maybe work at home projects, where they can relax with a tub of ice cream and answer phone calls "hey (taking a bite of ice cream) thank you for calling Consulting services, I'm pregnant...how can I help you?"

Why should women get paid to not work just because they got knocked up? Companies only have so much money for payroll and every dollar that does to someone who ISN'T working is a dollar taken away from someone who is. If women want to pop out some kids that is their business, but to expect to get paid for it? That's just retarded.